| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"RoB WADe" |
| Date: |
18 May 2005 02:39:00 PM |
| Object: |
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
by Dave Bohon
The 2005 legislative session finds advocates of traditional marriage
renewing their efforts to pass a state constitutional amendment
defining marriage as between a man and a woman. They warn, however, of
counterfeits proposals from opponents, designed to weaken - or even
derail - true marriage protection.
Early Victories
Following the lead of 11 states that passed marriage protection
amendments Nov. 2nd , legislators in Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina,
Washington, Texas, and Virginia have stepped up to the plate to
introduce similar amendments defining marriage as only between a man
and a woman. Amendment proposals have already passed a first run in
Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, and require one additional
vote in either of the legislative assemblies before going to the
citizens for final vote.
Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund said that the success in the 11
states Nov. 2nd "will encourage legislators in other states to follow
suit." Lavy told the Washington Times the action represented "an
overwhelming endorsement of the idea that marriage is what it always
has been - [the union of] a man and a woman."
So far constitutional amendments banning same-sex "marriage" have
already passed in 17 states. On Nov. 2nd, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
and Utah passed their amendments by a vote of the citizenry. Those
states joined Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska, Missouri, Louisiana and Nevada,
which had previously passed amendments.
Minnesota's House of Representatives passed a Defense of Marriage
Amendment during the 2004 legislative session. The proposal did not
make it through the Senate, however, setting the stage for
re-introduction of the amendment this session. "I think if Senate
leaders listen to the voice of the people of Minnesota this year and
consider the message sent on marriage amendments across the country,
they'll allow the people to vote on this critical issue," said
Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard. "Surveys indicate
that a clear majority of Minnesotans want marriage to be defined as
only between a man and a woman."
Counterfeit Marriage
Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute warned, however, that
states should not be duped into allowing same-sex "civil unions" as
a compromise to same-sex "marriage." He said allowing legal civil
unions for homosexuals is "just gay marriage by another name." He
said that is the reason nearly a dozen states have enacted
constitutional marriage amendments that also bar civil unions. "They
don't want government endorsing homosexuality," he said.
"It's one thing for people to form their own bonds," said Knight.
"It's another to use the law to force acceptance on everyone else.
The law protects marriage because it is irreplaceable. Homosexuals,
like anyone else, are free to bequeath property, issue power of
attorney, enter contracts, and obtain medical access without creating a
counterfeit of marriage."
Some homosexual activists concede that "civil unions" are only a
stepping stone to legalized same-sex marriage. "Civil unions are not
the solution," said former Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl
Jacques. "Even if civil unions provided all the same legal
protections of marriage - which they don't - they would still be
a separate and unequal system."
Prichard said that creating "civil unions" as part of passage of
the marriage amendment would be an unacceptable compromise in
Minnesota. "We can't play games with such a crucial institution as
marriage," said Prichard. "Any deal which grants homosexual couples
all the rights and privileges of marriage but simply calls it civil
union is unacceptable. Marriage is unique and must be treated that way
- not just for the sake of the individuals involved, but also for
children and future generations."
.
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 09:03:42 PM |
|
|
"Cartrivision1" <doidy1@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1116630877.606018.4800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
"Tim McGaughy" <teekem@ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:d6jt8601fhh@enews2.newsguy.com...
Cartrivision1 wrote:
[snip]
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they
would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead
of
just accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a
complete
farce.
I'm straight, and >I< find your attitude extremely disgusting.
You just made his head spin off his neck. These bigots can't wrap
their tiny
minds around a concept like that.
Than I take it that you think that "those bigots" make up the majority
of the US voting public? Because gay "marriage" was voted down in
every single state that it came up for a vote.
The majority opposed interracial marriage too.
Every legal decision on the matter has come down against your position.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim McGaughy" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 11:19:15 PM |
|
|
Cartrivision1 wrote:
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
"Tim McGaughy" <teekem@ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:d6jt8601fhh@enews2.newsguy.com...
Cartrivision1 wrote:
[snip]
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they
would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead
of
just accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a
complete
farce.
I'm straight, and >I< find your attitude extremely disgusting.
You just made his head spin off his neck. These bigots can't wrap
their tiny
minds around a concept like that.
Than I take it that you think that "those bigots" make up the majority
of the US voting public? Because gay "marriage" was voted down in
every single state that it came up for a vote. And in some states
close to 80% against, so that means the vote was across party lines.
Face it....not everyone feels like you do about the subject. And just
calling people bigots beacuse of their beliefs does not make it so.
Once upon a time, not everybody felt the way I do about letting blacks
sit wherever they want to on city busses.
Does that mean the majority of the country were bigots?
Ya know, actually, I think it does.
New differences, same old reaction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
22 May 2005 06:14:35 PM |
|
|
Cartrivision1 wrote:
Than I take it that you think that "those bigots" make up the majority
of the US voting public? Because gay "marriage" was voted down in
every single state that it came up for a vote. And in some states
close to 80% against, so that means the vote was across party lines.
Face it....not everyone feels like you do about the subject. And just
calling people bigots beacuse of their beliefs does not make it so.
Well color me a "bigot." I voted *for* Ohio's little item. And the fun
has begun in just the way I knew it would. Domestic violence
protections? Oh dear, those are suspect. Child visitation rights for the
divorced? Nope, can't allow those. All that's left is now for the "black
sheep" of the families to start challenging the Powers of Attorney...
Ah, the fun of being elderly and pissing off the familial ne'er do well.
Stay tuned. It's coming. The "compassionate" folks made sure of that.
(And some of us decided it would be worth while to let them have exactly
what they wanted. <smile>)
--
Little Things They Forget to Mention...
Item #5: Latex has an aftertaste.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
22 May 2005 10:58:22 PM |
|
|
"Dionisio" <moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote
Well color me a "bigot." I voted *for* Ohio's little item.
And the fun has begun in just the way I knew it would.
Domestic violence protections? Oh dear, those are
suspect. Child visitation rights for the divorced? Nope,
can't allow those. All that's left is now for the "black
sheep" of the families to start challenging the Powers
of Attorney...
I would agree with you, but the lunatic right-wing as
demonstrated a willingness to ignore -- "creatively
re-interpret" -- any law to suit their agenda.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 02:57:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 00:40:07 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem@ispwest.com>
wrote:
Cartrivision1 wrote:
Society has determined (as evidenced by last years elections) that it
prefers this traditional meaning of marriage, and the majority does not
wish for gay couples to mock marriage by allowing for same sex unions.
Mock?
I got two words for you, pal. 'Britney' and 'Spears'. That little
waterhead gets to go off and be married for a handful of hours while
friends of mine that have been together for years are banned from marriage.
There is No Such Thing as 'sanctity of marriage'.
Sure there is. <wink wink>
Just ask Zsa Zsa
Gabor-Belge-Hilton-Sanders-Hunter-Cosden-Ryan-O'Hara-de
Alba-von Anhalt (that's nine times, FYI).
Maybe Anne Frances Robbins-Davis-Reagan (d/b/a Nancy Reagan) or
Elizabeth
Taylor-Hilton-Wilding-Todd-Fisher-Burton-Warner-Burton-Fortensky
could also contribute to a discussion on the sanctity of marriage.
After all, with 20 marriages between them, they're fucking experts.
Literally.
Long Live Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli!!!!
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: A REAL Defense of Marriage Act (Was: 'Civil Union' is just gay'marriage' by another name) |
20 May 2005 08:33:06 AM |
|
|
Tim McGaughy wrote:
Cartrivision1 wrote:
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle.
Describe these 'lifestyles' and how they differ from one another.
Well, as I hope you are aware that a child can only be conceived by a
man/woman pairing. Of course modern medicine has allowed people to
conceive by other methods but these methods were not available until
recently. The reason government (and private employers) give perks to
married persons is that it is for the betterment of society.
So infertile people should not get married?
You know, I see this argument all the time, and I see the response I
just gave everytime it comes up. You are an idiot if you think people
should only get married if they are capable of producing children.
I have long proposed a *REAL* Defense of Marriage Act. This law would require
that both parties affirm, under jurat, that they have no known impediments to
procreation. If it turns out that one or both parties have had some kind of
surgical serilization (vasectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy) or medical
prohibition against having children (medications, threat to life, etc.) then
the person has lied under oath and has committed a felony in applying for a
marriage license.
Further, failure to procreate within three years would automatically revoke the
marriage license, and the two formerly married people would be required to pay
back to the state and federal governments any and all benefit accrued because
of having had married status, such as lower taxes. Employers would have the
legal right to pursue similar claims against the cost of medical insurance,
family leave and other benefits given exclusively to married couples.
Dissolution of a marriage because of failure to procreate would prohibit both
parties from *ever* getting married again; it would not do for a couple to
simply renew their marriage every three years.
And, to really protect marriage, once the couple have procreated divorce is
banned entirely. Living separately while the children are minors would be a
felony. After all, it is all about providing the kids, right?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 06:05:45 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1116528549.260430.83320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Cartrivision1
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they would in
probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead of just
accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay "marriage"
which of course in the eyes of the majority is a complete farce.
Yeah, well, used to be freeing slaves was "a complete farce." Used to be
extending vote to women was a "a complete farce." Used to be
interracial marriage was a "a complete farce."
Somehow, I'm less than impressed with the idea of civil rights being up
for popular vote...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 02:12:58 PM |
|
|
On 19 May 2005 11:49:09 -0700, "Cartrivision1" <doidy1@juno.com> wrote
in message <1116528549.260430.83320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle.
Describe these 'lifestyles' and how they differ from one another.
Well, as I hope you are aware that a child can only be conceived by a
man/woman pairing. Of course modern medicine has allowed people to
conceive by other methods but these methods were not available until
recently. The reason government (and private employers) give perks to
married persons is that it is for the betterment of society.
Society has determined (as evidenced by last years elections) that it
prefers this traditional meaning of marriage, and the majority does not
wish for gay couples to mock marriage by allowing for same sex unions.
Call that bigoted, homophobic, or whatever you want to call it but the
majority of americans do not think that same sex coupling is on the
same level as a man and woman. But hey, if you want to live together
and call yourself "married" or whatever, knock yourself out.
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead of
just accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a complete
farce.
Translation: "You should be happy to be a second class citizen. We
have shown you mercy simply by permitting you to live. Now show your
gratitude and kiss my *****."
--
Boy Toy
Toxic Toyz 4 Nasty Boyz
http://www.boytoyvideos.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 03:42:29 PM |
|
|
"Boy Toy" <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote in message
news:k6pp81lmabo4guh1bi17a2q91ul2olrhjq@4ax.com...
On 19 May 2005 11:49:09 -0700, "Cartrivision1" <doidy1@juno.com> wrote
in message <1116528549.260430.83320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle.
Describe these 'lifestyles' and how they differ from one another.
Well, as I hope you are aware that a child can only be conceived by a
man/woman pairing. Of course modern medicine has allowed people to
conceive by other methods but these methods were not available until
recently. The reason government (and private employers) give perks to
married persons is that it is for the betterment of society.
Society has determined (as evidenced by last years elections) that it
prefers this traditional meaning of marriage, and the majority does not
wish for gay couples to mock marriage by allowing for same sex unions.
Call that bigoted, homophobic, or whatever you want to call it but the
majority of americans do not think that same sex coupling is on the
same level as a man and woman. But hey, if you want to live together
and call yourself "married" or whatever, knock yourself out.
Gays in america probably have it a lot better in the US than they would
in probably 90% of the other of the worlds nations. But instead of
just accepting the gains that have been made, they push for gay
"marriage" which of course in the eyes of the majority is a complete
farce.
Translation: "You should be happy to be a second class citizen. We
have shown you mercy simply by permitting you to live. Now show your
gratitude and kiss my *****."
And these bigots wonder why people tell them to go ***** themselves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 01:23:52 PM |
|
|
Cartrivision1 wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
On 18 May 2005 12:39:00 -0700, "RoB WADe" <rob_c_wade_2@yahoo.com>
wrote or quoted :
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
how is your life improved by trying to create misery for others?
You are not involved in any way in the lives of gay people. What is
it to you how they arrange their relationships? Why do you think it
is even any of your business to interfere? What did any gay person
do to harm you?
In my state (Oregon) voters last November approved a constitutional
amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman. Before, the
law said mariage was between "husband and wife", but I guess to the
radical gays that was too vague and in Portland the county
commisioners took it upon themselves to give out marriage licenses to
same-sex couples. This decision was just overturned by the state
supreme court.
Now, the state legislature is considering a bill (SB 1000) which will
give ALL of the same rights to gay couples as are given to married
couples. People are upset at this, as they see it as basically a
run-around to the recent vote. I would probalby be OK with it but it
is only available to same sex couples, transgendered couples, etc.
Their is no provision for couples who either do not want marriage or
who are not involved in any kind of sexual relationship. Just the
GLBT folks.
Then why did you say "Their(sic) is no provision for couples who either do
not want marriage..."
The GLTB wants the (return of) same benefits that are available in the
straight community for two people who want to get married. Most couples I
know consider that they are in fact married.
But if one of them gets sick the other may not be able to care for that
person.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 05:04:32 AM |
|
|
Cartrivision1 wrote:
Their is no provision for couples who either do not want marriage or
who are not involved in any kind of sexual relationship.
You're upset that folks who don't want married probably have no
intention of getting married?
Fascinating.
--
Little Things They Forget to Mention...
Item #5: Latex has an aftertaste.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 06:03:29 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1116482956.648952.120130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Cartrivision1
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
I would probalby be OK with it but it is only available to
same sex couples, transgendered couples, etc. Their is no provision for
couples who either do not want marriage or who are not involved in any
kind of sexual relationship. Just the GLBT folks.
Um... there's no marriage type provision for people who don't want to be
married?
Can you run that by again?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 06:16:39 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode
<1116482956.648952.120130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Cartrivision1
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
I would probalby be OK with it but it is only available to
same sex couples, transgendered couples, etc. Their is no provision
for couples who either do not want marriage or who are not involved
in any kind of sexual relationship. Just the GLBT folks.
Um... there's no marriage type provision for people who don't want to
be married?
Can you run that by again?
This is the second time I've seen someone try to make this argument...
There is no marriage type provided to people that want to be single, or
remain unmarried. Well, I suppose the marriage type would be "unmarried".
That's sort of the point of marriage, that you actually be married...
otherwise, you're... ummm... not married.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Bohlman" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 06:27:29 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in
news:rGjje.3779$Lc1.801@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
This is the second time I've seen someone try to make this argument...
There is no marriage type provided to people that want to be single,
or remain unmarried. Well, I suppose the marriage type would be
"unmarried". That's sort of the point of marriage, that you actually
be married... otherwise, you're... ummm... not married.
Presumably, their complaint is that there's no way for a couple to be
legally recognized as a couple without also incurring a legal commitment to
each other. IOW, they want an officially-granted status symbol that
doesn't come with any obligations. They're ***** that the government
won't award them trophies for "scoring." It's all part of the "success is
taking more than you give" mentality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 06:35:13 PM |
|
|
Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@omsdev.com> wrote:
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in
news:rGjje.3779$Lc1.801@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
This is the second time I've seen someone try to make this
argument... There is no marriage type provided to people that want
to be single, or remain unmarried. Well, I suppose the marriage
type would be "unmarried". That's sort of the point of marriage,
that you actually be married... otherwise, you're... ummm... not
married.
Presumably, their complaint is that there's no way for a couple to be
legally recognized as a couple without also incurring a legal
commitment to each other. IOW, they want an officially-granted
status symbol that doesn't come with any obligations. They're pissed
off that the government won't award them trophies for "scoring."
It's all part of the "success is taking more than you give" mentality.
Agreed.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
21 May 2005 06:05:00 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <rGjje.3779$Lc1.801@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Andrealphus pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode
<1116482956.648952.120130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Cartrivision1
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
I would probalby be OK with it but it is only available to same sex
couples, transgendered couples, etc. Their is no provision for couples
who either do not want marriage or who are not involved in any kind of
sexual relationship. Just the GLBT folks.
Um... there's no marriage type provision for people who don't want to be
married?
Can you run that by again?
This is the second time I've seen someone try to make this argument...
There is no marriage type provided to people that want to be single, or
remain unmarried. Well, I suppose the marriage type would be
"unmarried". That's sort of the point of marriage, that you actually be
married... otherwise, you're... ummm... not married.
I've seen it a few times myself and never have quite figured out the, erm,
logic?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie Bitch" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
19 May 2005 06:56:38 AM |
|
|
On 18 May 2005 23:09:16 -0700, "Cartrivision1" <doidy1@juno.com>
wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
On 18 May 2005 12:39:00 -0700, "RoB WADe" <rob_c_wade_2@yahoo.com>
wrote or quoted :
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
how is your life improved by trying to create misery for others?
You are not involved in any way in the lives of gay people. What is
it
to you how they arrange their relationships? Why do you think it is
even any of your business to interfere? What did any gay person do to
harm you?
In my state (Oregon) voters last November approved a constitutional
amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman. Before, the
law said mariage was between "husband and wife", but I guess to the
radical gays that was too vague and in Portland the county commisioners
took it upon themselves to give out marriage licenses to same-sex
couples. This decision was just overturned by the state supreme court.
The previous marriage statute in Oregon simply declared the age of
consent (17 years of age) for a man, and 17 for a woman.
I guess that the lack of a clear prohibition just wasn't enough for
the bigoted, adulterous, Christofascist RepubliCUNTS.
The Multnomah County Commissioners were simply following the law as
written. Again, I guess simple reading comprehension is beyond the
bigoted, adulterous, Christofascist RepubliCUNTS.
But hey, in Corvallis, the county commissioners decided that if
same-sex couples can't get married, for no other reason than it
offends the bigoted, adulterous, Christofascist RepubliCUNTS, then NO
ONE was gonna get married. Perhaps you like that better? I know I do.
Now, the state legislature is considering a bill (SB 1000) which will
give ALL of the same rights to gay couples as are given to married
couples.
And the bill also provides the same guarantees against discrimination
that the bigoted, adulterous, Christofascist RepubliCUNTS receive.
People are upset at this, as they see it as basically a
run-around to the recent vote. I would probalby be OK with it but it
is only available to same sex couples, transgendered couples, etc.
Personally, I say boo-fucking-hoo and offer you a tissue. You don't
give a rat's scrotum that same-sex couples can't get married. So shall
ye reap, as the saying goes.
Their is no provision for couples who either do not want marriage or
who are not involved in any kind of sexual relationship. Just the GLBT
folks.
Tissue?
Now I believe the usual suspects are behind this (ACLU, etc.) but it
seems to me that if these benefits are going to be opened for gay
couples, they should also be open to other couples in whatever kind of
relationship they might have.
And I might agree with you, but you just had to flap yer yap some
more.....
But the gay community as always just
seems to be concerned with their own narrow interests.
But when the bigoted, adulterous, Christofascist RepubliCUNTS are only
concerned with their own narrow interests, it's fine and dandy.
Starts with H, ends in Y, rhymes with HIPOCRISY.
I know that
marriage in it's present form is not perfect, but it should be
preserved in it's present state. People who choose an alternative
lifestyle should accept the consequences of such a lifestyle. Just as
I as a single person do not get some of the same perks as a married
person(s).
Then again, you do have the option of <drum roll> getting married, if
you want the benefits and perks so badly. GLBT people do not have that
option with the adult, consenting, non-consanguine partner of choice.
And argumentum ad antiquitatem is not a sufficient legal reason to
deny civil rights.
Happy FOAD --
Bonnie *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guardian Pegasus" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 04:46:21 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2005 12:39:00 -0700, "RoB WADe" <rob_c_wade_2@yahoo.com>
wrote:
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
It's called civil rights, you fascist *****, and it's in the
constitution!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 11:01:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:46:21 +0200, Guardian Pegasus
<Pope.Been-a-*****.Adolf.Panzer.Rat.Nazinger.Torquemada.II@holysee.va>
wrote or quoted :
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
It's called civil rights, you fascist *****, and it's in the
constitution!
the concept is called "equal protection". You can't make laws that
arbitrarily single out a group for special exception.
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 04:03:22 PM |
|
|
RoB WADe wrote:
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
Anyone been following the story of Spokane's mayor who is a staunch
anti-gay supporter, that also happens to be gay. Numerous studies have
demonstrated that the vast majority of those who oppose the gay
lifestyle are actually gay themselves but attempting to hide their
sexual orientation.
Anything you want to tell us Rob Wade?
.
|
|
|
| User: "_GODS__CREATOR_" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
24 May 2005 12:49:48 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
RoB WADe wrote:
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
Anyone been following the story of Spokane's mayor who is a staunch
anti-gay supporter, that also happens to be gay. Numerous studies have
demonstrated that the vast majority of those who oppose the gay
lifestyle are actually gay themselves but attempting to hide their
sexual orientation.
Anything you want to tell us Rob Wade?
Thus Spake God's Creator; (I don't forgive *****!)
Some people can only hold on to their sex partner
by using the church and government laws...
Without marriage rules and laws,
their sex partner would leave them.
GOD'S CREATOR
...That was my only sin...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wise men face unknowns, and boldly looks for reality!
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
Todays Holy Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 04:58:44 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2005 14:03:22 -0700, "Dave" <dland@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
RoB WADe wrote:
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
Anyone been following the story of Spokane's mayor who is a staunch
anti-gay supporter, that also happens to be gay. Numerous studies have
demonstrated that the vast majority of those who oppose the gay
lifestyle are actually gay themselves but attempting to hide their
sexual orientation.
Anything you want to tell us Rob Wade?
Reagan's marriage to Nancy was adultery by another name.
Jesus Christ of the Gospels said so. Its in the Gospels plain as day.
Gay marriage is no greater a sin than Reagan's marriage to Nancy.
Jesus W. Christ is concerned about gays getting married.
Unlike Jesus W. Christ, Jesus Christ of the Gospels never uttered a
word on the subject.
Jesus Christ said that only those without sin should throw the first
stone.
Jesus W. Christ teaches us correctly that Jesus Christ was wrong and
sending the wrong signal. Jesus W. Christ correctly teaches that the
consequences of adultery should be public stoning irrespective of the
stone casters' lack of sin.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name. The Mets suck. |
18 May 2005 02:43:04 PM |
|
|
RoB WADe wrote:
'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name
by Dave Bohon
The 2005 legislative session finds advocates of traditional marriage
renewing their efforts to pass a state constitutional amendment
defining marriage as between a man and....
The Mets suck.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
18 May 2005 06:54:07 PM |
|
|
RoB WADe wrote:
The law protects marriage because it is irreplaceable.
Let's have a show of hands. Who thinks he told that very same line to
his first wife?
(Leaving in "Dr." Laura's group. Who knew Wade could be so topical?)
--
Little Things They Forget to Mention...
Item #5: Latex has an aftertaste.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 04:31:14 AM |
|
|
[FUT removed]
RoB WADe <rob_c_wade_2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Minnesota's House of Representatives passed a Defense of Marriage
Amendment during the 2004 legislative session.
How can it be a /defence/ of marriage to prevent 5-10% of the population
from getting married? I'd rather think it as an attack on marriage -
making sure that fewer people live in marriage than would otherwise be
the case.
Prichard said that creating "civil unions" as part of passage of
the marriage amendment would be an unacceptable compromise in
Minnesota.
Well, that is what was considered an acceptable compromise in lots of
European countries back in the 1990s.
"We can't play games with such a crucial institution as
marriage," said Prichard. "Any deal which grants homosexual couples
all the rights and privileges of marriage but simply calls it civil
union is unacceptable. Marriage is unique and must be treated that way
- not just for the sake of the individuals involved, but also for
children and future generations."
And for the sake of children of homosexuals, their parents should stay
unmarried?
Please do remember that Lesbians can always get children. And that male
homosexuals can become fathers through artificial insemination of a
Lesbian - a common technology that you can manage at the kitchen table.
And one can ask: Why is the U.S. so backwards? You've got problems with
accepting science from the 1800s: Charles Darwin. You're still sticking
to an obsolete measure stystem like inches, feet and miles instead of
the SI system used everywhere else. And on sexuality, you still seem to
live in the age of Queen Victoria, an age with an extremely inmoral
morality.
In these days the Spanish Upper House will affirm the Lower Hose's
decision allowing gay marriages with full rights of adoption.
--
Per Erik Rønne
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Civil Union' is just gay 'marriage' by another name |
20 May 2005 04:49:05 AM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
Will someone please explain to me exactly how allowing same-sex
couples to marry somehow harms, rather than enhances, the institution
of marriage?
They can't - unless they claim that homosexuality can be "cured" and
that gay people will be able to live in stable heterosexual
relationships like in Victorian England.
--
Per Erik Rønne
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
